For more than a decade John McCain has been a darling of the national political press, even up through his victory in the Republican primary. Much of that has changed, in part because the media has somewhat moved on from the McCain narrative and at least equally because of the McCain campaign's animosity toward the press corp. Townhall's Matt Lewis says the following passage describes the evolution quite well:

"He loved the Senate, he loved Arizona, he loved his wife, and he hated being told what to do ... He may have also sensed that his popularity, which was considerable, would change once he became a candidate for president.  As many people have discovered, a politician can go to long way in Washington until he becomes a serious presidential candidate.  At that precise moment the Washington press corps digs in, and reputations are destroyed in no time."

However, Lewis points out:

The author goes on to write that prior to running for president, this person wrote a popular book, was subject of numerous positive  magazine articles, and was a fixture on national television.

... I should probably point out that this quote is not in reference to John McCain.  It actually comes from Alfred Regnery's book, "Upstream," and refers to Barry Goldwater's 1964 race. 

The only difference here I'd point out is that the media's positive treatment of Obama actually accelerated when he announced his run for president. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy aside, a "digging in" by the press corps didn't really begin until after Obama had defeated Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
 

As expected, Tina Fey returned to Saturday Night Live this past weekend to perform her impression of Sarah Palin. The skit, which also featured Amy Pohler as Hillary Clinton, didn't cut either woman much slack. But even if Fey doesn't care much for Palin or her politics, the vice presidential nominee's star power is even trickling down to their online videos. It already has more than five million views. SNL creator Lorne Michaels is no doubt glad he convinced Fey to do the impression, despite her reservations.

Both conservative and liberal bloggers are espousing theories today as to whether the traditional media have been biased against Sarah Palin. Howard Kurtz's column today on being grilled by an "absolutely furious"  Steve Schmidt is the most discussed in the blogosphere.

On the left side of the argument, Josh Marshall says reporters and readers are "getting played" by Schmidt, whom he says is confusing personal rumors in the blogosphere with legitimate inquiries into her political associations and experience:

Schmidt, by the way, is one of the most hard-boiled GOP operatives and Rove proteges around. I guess he and his McCain colleagues missed the whole Rev. Wright episode, Clinton impeachment episode and, what, maybe twenty other episodes over recent years.

Joe Klein thinks John McCain is sincerely agitated at the press, but says Schmidt is provoking a media war for "tactical reasons." I think both of Klein's points are probably right. But I disagree with what appears to be Klein's conclusion that a tactical decision disqualifies the merits of the complaint.

On the right, Jennifer Rubin predicts the attacks on Palin will backfire against both the media and Democrats. I think there's a good chance she's right about that, especially with Republicans and some independent voters.

National Review's excellent reporter Jim Geraghty makes a point being argued by several Republican lawmakers today:

In 72 hours, the media has subjected Bristol Palin to more scrutiny than they've given to Barack Obama in two years. Perhaps that's a mild exaggeration. But pretty darn mild.

And the often sound Stephen Bainbridge concludes:

I think this ends up helping McCain. In particular, it may redress some of the enthusiasm deficit. Lots of Republicans who had no fire in their belly for McCain are now seriously pissed off at the media. If McCain sticks by Palin, I may even open my wallet.

Like most glossy publications, and journalistic enterprises in general, The Atlantic Monthly is trying to figure out how its sometimes great, but nonetheless "old" journalism fits into a web 2.0 world.  To address that question, they hired a nice group of established bloggers (Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Megan McArdle, Ross Douthat and Marc Ambinder) to give their website new shelf life.

A quick survey from Compete shows the site has certainly grown in traffic this year, but at what cost?



A great publication like The Atlantic deserves a much longer and thoughtful analysis. But in short, if Michael Kelly's passing wasn't the telltale sign, then blogs are surely killing The Atlantic. In all seriousness, are Hitler comparisons, Obama cheerleading and outlandish political labels applied to their publication by their own staffers the peak of intellectual journalism?

John McCain's "Celeb" ad deriding Barack Obama as the "biggest celebrity in the world," has racked up 1.24 million hits in just over two days, thanks largely to nearly non-stop attention from the media. But unlike many other high-profile political videos, this one only earns two stars out of a possible five from the users who vote on You Tube's content. In short, that shows the video is likely being viewed more from Obama supporters than McCain's base.

But as the saying goes, any press is good press. The McCain campaign is now bragging about owning this week's media narrative, even as much of that narrative has seen a negative turn in the coverage of McCain, as liberals and McCain's old media allies disingenuously wonder why he's so angry all of a sudden. As further evidence to bolster their claim, the Gallup Daily tracking poll now shows McCain and Obama tied at 44 percent. McCain has claimed about 1.3 points in the poll each day since the "Celeb" ad premiered.

CQ Politics' Craig Crawford looks at the unprecedented level of ads, and ad spending, flooding our nation's airwaves.

And USA Today's Mark Memmott has a blog poll asking who went negative first? I took the least popular option, "they're equally to blame," which is taking in all of seven percent! "Republicans/McCain" are winning with 76 percent of the vote in the "who stole my electoral innocence?" sweepstakes.

Last week, John McCain's campaign launched what I described as another example of their improving media outreach with a pair of videos lampooning the media's "love affair" with Barack Obama. The videos have been a big success for the McCain campaign on You Tube, with more than 200,000 hits. The videos were also forwarded to McCain supporters via email, where they were encouraged to vote on their favorite version and further encouraged to donate to the campaign.

However, Wired's Sarah Lai Stirland reports that the McCain campaign has been forced to remove the videos because Warner Bros. music said the use of Frankie Valli's old hit, "Can't Take My Eyes Off You."

The campaign has reposted the video, without the original tune. It's picked up about 10,000 views since posting this weekend, but isn't the same...

 

The official trailer for Oliver Stone's upcoming biopic of President Bush, "W," doesn't premier until later tonight. But I've come across a leaked version that you can watch below. There's been a lot of skepticism about this film, as Oliver Stone hasn't had a critical hit in years and his previous political films have been a mixed bag. But on first glance, this looks interesting, and potentially good. It's scheduled to debut in theaters in time for the election:

Elisabeth Bumiller has a solid article in The New York Times today on John McCain's rough week, as he struggles for attention while the media is largely focused on Barack Obama's overseas trip:

Senator John McCain's presidential campaign recovered from a near-death experience almost exactly a year ago, and political candidates stumble in and out of troughs all the time. But it is safe to say that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is not having a spectacular week.

Most of the attention on McCain this week from the media has concerned whether he was being "ignored" by the press in favor of more Obama coverage. But a number of progressive bloggers have read the Bumiller piece and come away with a different take: The media's own "love affair" with McCain is over. At least for now,.

Firedoglake's Scarecrow:

Sure, it's tough to follow President 27%. But the fact is, whatever John McCain once was, campaigning against Obama has revealed McCain as an angry, resentful, often befuddled old man.

BarbinMD adds in her Daily Kos diary that McCain may have a point about focusing on domestic votes, but that our image abroad should not be ignored:

Does John McCain have a valid point? Or, could it be argued that while there aren't any electoral votes to be won in Germany, we do have many shared interests that need our attention? And given that Germany is a friend to our country, wasn't Obama's speech both necessary and appropriate?

This is something I've been thinking about this week. McCain is essentially hoping for a tortoise vs. hare campaign. While Obama gets the center stage and big crowds, McCain is slowly massaging the Republican base while connecting with real voters in his more intimate town hall settings. As McCain aide Mark Salter put it:

"I think he's getting his message out -- go look at some of the local press and the local TV packages," Mr. Salter said. "It's John McCain on energy and the economy."

(On Thursday in Pennsylvania, The Times Leader in Wilkes-Barre prominently featured Mr. McCain's comments in the state on Social Security; The Morning Call in Allentown covered Mr. McCain's stop at the grocery store, including his remarks that $4-a-gallon milk was putting a strain on American families.)

While the American media has taken a largely positive view of Barack Obama's overseas trip this week, cartoonists in the Arab world have a decidedly different take on the situation. Obama's candidacy may have indeed brought some hope for change to those in the Middle East who feel White House policy has been too tilted towards Israel over the past 30 years. But after Obama's comments about an undivided Jerusalem, and his meetings this week with Israeli leaders, that view may be quickly changing.

Al-Ghad, June 9, 2008
Headline: "Obama, the American Candidate."

The Anti-Defamation League has compiled a series of cartoons that portray Obama and John McCain as being puppets of, or unfairly favoring, Israeli policies. Some of the images are fairly benign, while others have a clear anti-Semitic bent, and a few portray Obama in a racially insensitive fashion. For what it's worth, McCain isn't treated any better. From the ADL release:

The American elections have provided an excuse for the Arab media to promulgate perverse, bigoted and age-old conspiracy theories that portray Israelis and Jews as controlling the candidates.

It's not too often that a presidential election features a contest between two media darlings. Nonetheless, John McCain's campaign is still pretty upset about the press advantage that appears to be swinging Barack Obama's way. I'll be discussing this unusual argument on MSNBC today from 12:-12:30pm EST.

The progressive blogosphere was largely responsible for pressuring several prominent Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama, to boycott a Fox News Channel sponsored debate earlier this year. So, it's been surprising to see a few examples of praise, or even just positive citations, of the network from left-leaning blogs. It shows how divisive the primary was when Clinton supporters find solace with the same network most liberals say been a "mouthpiece" of the Bush administration. Though in fairness it also credits Fox for producing quality content even non-Clinton supporting progressive news blogs think is worth linking to.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh says she still believes Fox is staffed by "conservatives," but also says she thinks Obama will end his Fox boycott soon and praises the network for its treatment of Clinton:

There's been a progressive ban on all things Fox for a very long time, for good reasons. But I walked away from that strategy when the only fair press Clinton was getting came on Fox. That doesn't mean they'll be "fair and balanced" to the Democrats during the general election. Because we all know that Brit Hume and company are conservatives. But including Juan Williams, Fox has been fair to Clinton, which is where my prism of judgment lies right now.

Talking Points Memo also posts a video complication highlighting Fox's negative reaction to John McCain's speech on the same night Obama wrapped up the nomination fight.

Meanwhile, conservative media site Newsbusters looks at a Pew survey of political bias in cable news coverage and finds that while Democrats and Republicans are split in their preference for MSNBC:

Far more Republicans (24%) than Democrats (10%) get most of their campaign news from Fox [News Channel], while the opposite is true for CNN: 24% of Democrats look to CNN compared with just 13% of Republicans.

John McCain gave a speech this morning outlining his judicial philosophy. The speech didn't contain much of anything new to those who have followed Republican approaches to the judiciary: avoid "judicial activism," nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, etc. But for McCain, it's a speech he needed to give, and may need to give again, to assure movement conservative voters that he is of their ilk when it comes to future judicial appointments. The one interesting point was McCain cited the Gang of 14, which in his view, led to the successful nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Even if there's a lot of truth in his rationale, it's highly unlikely to be warmly received by self-described conservatives who see any degree of compromise on judges as an abject failure.

Marc Ambinder notes the press doesn't understand why McCain wanted to talk about his philosophy rather than debating the merits of significant past cases.

Writing that McCain's audience is "grasping it perfectly," Mary Kathering Ham writes:

I suppose it's natural that the press would assume McCain would spend an entire speech about the judicial system talking about policy instead of principles. The beauty of conservatives, however, is that they understand judicial philosophy is not about enacting preferred policies.

Atlantic scribe Jeffrey Goldberg enters the foreboding world of blogging and comes away from his initial excursion a bit bruised and battered. A blogger for the New York Observer errantly makes fun of Goldberg, to which the author wonders:

It seems to me to be a basic point. Haber's post on my blog would have been more interesting if he actually got me to talk about my reporting. I might have even inadvertently offered him ammunition.

It's one of the mysteries of the blogosphere, why more people don't simply pick up the phone once in a while.

Video of Hillary Clinton's recent appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" is making the rounds on YouTube (going from 20,000 views to nearly 70,000 in just a few hours) because of Clinton's remarks where she says "God bless us," in reference to being wealthy. Here's the video in question:







In a conference call yesterday, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson denied Clinton said "God bless us," and instead suggested she said, "God blessed us." But on review, Clinton clearly does say "God bless us, and we deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation." The thing is, what's so incriminating about Clinton's statement? Her stated desire to pass on the financial "blessings" she's received to the next generation is a common sentiment amongst those who are the first in their families to have independently accumulated a large sum of wealth. It is a big part of what is known as the American Dream.

While it's clear she is saying "God bless us," it's equally clear to any fair observer that she is saying this not to self-aggrandize her financial assets, but is more likely attempting to diminish her identity as a wealthy person. In other words, she's pandering to those who think it's somehow morally wrong, or uncouth, to be simultaneously rich and liberal. Of course, when Wolfson tries to dodge Clinton's actual remarks rather than accurately explain their context, he makes it appear as if she does in fact have something to hide and/or be ashamed of.

Bob Herbert says Jeremiah Wright has come to "bury" Obama, but offers this bit of truth about how Obama found himself the victim of Wright's ego tirade to begin with:

This whole story is about Senator Obama’s run for the White House and absolutely nothing else. Barack Obama went to Rev. Wright’s church as a young man and was blessed with the Christian bona fides that would be absolutely essential for a high-profile political career.

I don't think this is what Herbert meant, but doesn't that mean on at least some level Obama is getting what he deserves? Or, that he's reaping what he's sewn, to employ some contextual language. But Herbert says the greater danger to Obama's candidacy is that supporters will view this episode as evidence he just isn't tough enough to be president. Commentary's Jennifer Rubin says Obama missed his chance to effectively break with Wright:

There is evidently nothing Wright can say that would cause Obama to break, once and for all, with him. And no explanation comes to mind to help us understand how Wright concealed his world view from Obama for so long.

Meanwhile, Digby says the media, citing Hardball host Chris Matthews in particular, is making an unfair connection between Wright and Obama:

I completely agree that this is an attempt to silence liberal voices and make them an automatic political problem. That's certainly what we saw yesterday.

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall has a popular post today arguing that the media have switched their allegiances from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton:

While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.

While The Washington Post runs an op-ed from Clinton strategist Geoff Garin arguing that Clinton has been unfairly labeled by the media as running a more negative campaign than Obama. So, who is right?

The right answer might be that neither are entirely correct. Overall, the press does seem to be turning a more critical eye towards Obama, but that does not naturally equate into "positive" coverage for Clinton. From a purely Machiavellian view, it's fair to say that any negative coverage of Obama is a plus for Clinton, but it's not accurate to say the media has jumped ship to Clinton. Liberal and independent voices have long been saying that the media were deeply flawed in their largely unquestioning approach to President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War. But many of those same journalists have, until recently, shown a comparable "ignorance is bliss" approach to Obama. The real complaint should be about journalists willfully taking sides without a foundation of empirical data.

Less time needs to be spent on Garin's complaint. Aside from Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton has run the most negative campaign of the primary season. It's true that Obama's operation has done its share of negative campaigning, but that does not mean it has been as negative as Clinton's. In this case, where the public does in fact perceive Clinton as having run the more negative campaign, we can refer to Arnold Schwarzenegger's own prior campaign acknowledgment that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Blogger reactions to both posts after the jump...

I have a feature today on the main CQ Politics site about how the Capitol Hill leadership offices are all now employing full-time staffers to conduct blogger/Internet outreach as part of their communications strategy. 

According to this NBC promo, President Bush will be making a cameo appearance on tonight's airing of the game show, "Deal or No Deal."

The Nation's Ari Melber has a post today on how bloggers have pushed Cliff Schecter's new anti-John McCain book, "The Real McCain," up the Amazon.com rankings without much help from the traditional media:

Since its launch last week, "The Real McCain" shot to sixth on Amazon's list of political biographies, right between tomes by Jesse Ventura and former Pentagon official Doug Feith. Yet there has been no paid advertising for the book so far, and Schecter has not done any major TV appearances to promote it. Instead, web sales are driven by liberal bloggers, who have promoted the book and talked up the new allegations. Shechter netted over 250 blog mentions last week alone, according to Technorati. And that's no accident.

The rationale sounds an awful lot like the one employed by conservative activists who have made best-selling authors out of people like Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg and many, many others. While their political differences are broad, the commonality is the belief that only through a nurtured relationship with their respective communities can these voices receive the prominence that their fans believe they deserve.

But a presence in the blog world does not guarantee success in the larger publishing world. Markos Moulitsas' "Crashing the Gate," moved a modest amount of books, as did Ana Marie Cox's first novel, "Dog Days." However, both were viewed as having sold less-than-expected, considering the authors' large web presence. Other efforts have largely been ignored by the book buying public, illustrating that simply choosing to write about Internet-related subjects does not mean the author comes with a built-in audience. One standout example of a strong blogging presence equaling large book sales has been Andrew Sullivan's recent "The Conservative Soul." Sullivan's earlier publishing efforts were much smaller affairs despite his longstanding presence in the DC media scene. His fellow Atlantic blogger, Matthew Yglesias, has his own book coming out this month. Yglesias is one of the more well-read bloggers out there today, so it will be interesting to see if that audience translates into paying customers.

Finally, Schecter's anti-McCain book may not be getting much mainstream attention, but Fox News did ask the senator directly about some of Schecter's allegations:

The Village Voice has posted its guide to conservative blogs, complete with Tom Tomorrow illustrations, declaring:

Thanks to the curse of modern technology, you’ll be hearing what top Internet buffoons are saying about the candidates—whether you want to or not. So you may as well prepare yourself.

Of course the Voice is a very liberal publication, so it's take on conservative blogs comes with a heavy hand, with such descriptors as a "stupid/evil ratio" to rate the spotlighted bloggers. Still, it's not a bad primer of some of the bigger right-leaning blogs out there - and a fun/infuriating read, depending on your political leanings.

Bloggers spotlighted: James Lileks, Glenn Reynolds, Rod Dreher, Powerline, Megan McArdle, Ann Althouse, Little Green Footballs, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin and Ace of Spades.

Some reactions from the bloggers in question after the jump...

Earlier today it was reported that Washington's most-popular/notorious political gossip blog, Wonkette, has been sold by Gawker Media's Nick Denton. In an email to the Politico, Denton says the sale was made to the site's current editor Ken Layne. From the email:

WONKETTE is being spun off to the managing editor, Ken Layne, former founder of one of the web's very first news sites, Tabloid.net. The title will become part of the Blogads network of political sites, which includes Daily Kos, among others.

Why these three sites? To be blunt: they each had their editorial successes; but someone else will have better luck selling the advertising than we did.

Now that the move is complete, it's not surprising that Denton would take a small dig at his former property. But it's also a fairly accurate financial assessment. While Wonkette has retained a large readership for several years, it's always been the traffic runt of the larger Gawker empire, despite being one of the company's signature properties. For Denton, this was the smartest time to sell. As he noted, traffic is up. But it's also an election year, and who knows if that readership spike will be sustained once the presidential campaign is over? Most likely, it won't.

But the move could also be good for Wonkette as a singular enterprise. Freed from the constraints of Gawker's aversion to taking politics seriously, the site can retain it's foul-mouthed humor, while potentially embracing a more sincerely enthusiastic approach to Washington's political and social scene. As Slate's Troy Patterson wrote last week, political satire is often at its best when playing a watchdog role, rather than simply reducing the subject matter to its lowest common denominator.

Patrick Gavin says it would be a mistake to discount the site's longevity:

Around town, we always hear "Wonkette's not what it used to be" but, to be fair, we've always heard that: We heard that when Ana Marie Cox was there ("not as funny as she used to be"), when Alex Pareene and David Lat took over ("not as funny as Wonkette used to be") and also with the current leadership (again: "not as funny as it used to be") so we're not entirely sold on the "slippery slope" theory since we've pretty much always found it funny.

A few problems today with an otherwise pedestrian article by the Washington Times' Stephen Dinan on how John McCain's outreach to conservative bloggers resulted in a "respectful truce" with McCain's campaign. I agree with the article's thesis, but it has at least one notable flaw: proper identification of his blogger sources.

Buried near the bottom of the piece, Dinan notes how he was unable to get a response from either the Clinton or Obama campaigns on their web outreach efforts. Dinan instead dedicates the last four graphs of his story to Jerome Armstrong, the "godfather" of liberal blogs and curator of MyDD.com. Armstrong is given space to note his views that team Clinton has done a better job of reaching out to bloggers, and Dinan chimes in with a few negative quips about Obama's relationship with bloggers:

Neither Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama's campaigns returned calls about their Web outreach, though Jerome Armstrong, a liberal blogger at MyDD.com, said Mr. McCain's regular outreach tops anything the two Democrats are doing, and he said it's an approach he would recommend to any candidate.

Mr. Armstrong said Mrs. Clinton is ahead of Mr. Obama in her outreach, inviting bloggers onto regular press briefing calls with traditional reporters. He also said her blogger, Peter Daou, pitches ideas to bloggers in the same way press secretaries pitch stories to reporters, and Mr. Daou produces blog clippings in the same way most campaigns produce clip books of newspaper articles.

As for Mr. Obama, he said the Illinois senator "didn't do enough to reach out to his potential allies in the blogosphere and integrate them into the campaign." Now, when he runs into trouble, they are slower to rally to his defense.

And last month, Mr. Obama told reporters on his campaign plane he doesn't read blogs — something they took note of.

What Dinan doesn't tell his readers is that Armstrong is a Clinton supporter and that his website recently was feuding with his co-author Markos Moulitsas' web home, DailyKos, over allegations that the Kossacks are too overtly pro-Obama. Armstrong knows his politics and certainly merits being called upon as a source. He also isn't so far biased as to be considered a Clinton mouthpiece, but his views have been called into some question by some progressive bloggers. This sort of thing can be found in a 30 second Google search and almost certainly merited a citation in the story.

Dinan also fails to identify Matt Lewis and Ed Morrissey as conservative bloggers. Armstrong, however, is identified  as "liberal." This may ultimately be a minor quibble, but I have to believe proper vetting and identification of Armstrong would have taken place if he were a political consultant or traditional media source.

Armstrong discusses his Clinton support to George Washington University students here:




* Disclaimer: I used to work at the Washington Times as a national political reporter and often wrote on the efforts of conservatives to play catch-up in the world of web 2.0.

There has been plenty of discussion in the blogosphere over the past week as to whether Hillary Clinton's continued presence in the Democratic primary is bad for the party. Part of that discussion is a debate over whether the discussion itself is being largely created and circulated by the media.

But today's story by Jackie Calmes in the Wall Street Journal (the most discussed political story this morning in the blogs and generating more than 700 Diggs) shows that whether or not the media has pressured Clinton and her surrogates, a snowball effect is beginning to take shape:

Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.

Describing the Clinton campaign as being caught in a Catch 22, the Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman says:

Her campaign, in various news reports, has made it clear that it seeks to raise Obama’s negatives so that by election time he is unelectable. But the only way to do that is in a way that elicits howls of protest from Obama supporters, hardens party divisions — and raises Clinton’s OWN negatives. A nomination achieved by politically dismembering Obama would be a hallow one. And if she won the general election, she’d likely take office a polarizing figure.

 
 NRO's Jim Geraghty adds:

Obama's picking up speed among the Superdelegates, but Hillary thinks they can nickel and dime their way to narrowing the gap among regular delegates.

If Mike Bloomberg doesn't end up as Barack Obama's vice presidential candidate, he should certainly be appointed minister of propaganda by any future commander-in-chief. The man knows how to generate endless media excitement while doing virtually nothing. While there was no evidence of any actual grassroots enthusiasm for a Bloomberg presidential run, the national press remained taken with the notion until Bloomberg officially said he would not run last month.

And now, Marc Ambinder reports that the Obama campaign asked Bloomberg to introduce him before Obama's economic speech today in NYC and that Bloomberg accepted. That simple, careful introduction has ignited speculation on both the left and right blogosphere over what a Bloomberg vice presidential run would mean. In short, both sides largely agree it would be more meaningful than an independent Bloomberg presidential run.

Brian Stelter, who used to blog for TVNewser.com was hired by The New York Times last year as a media reporter. As part of his new beat, Stelter has a good piece today documenting the way younger media consumers are digesting their news. Social networking sites like Facebook and viral video clearinghouses like YouTube have become not just convenient, but exceedingly popular destinations for campaign videos that are too long for TV:

A December survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press looked broadly at how media were being consumed this campaign. In the most striking finding, half of respondents over the age of 50 and 39 percent of 30- to 49-year-olds reported watching local television news regularly for campaign news, while only 25 percent of people under 30 said they did.

Fully two-thirds of Web users under 30 say they use social networking sites, while fewer than 20 percent of older users do.

In related news, TechPresident reports that nearly 4 million people have watched Obama's Philadelphia speech on race online.

While most of our coverage here specifically concerns the intersection of blogging and politics, there is the occasional non-political blogging story that merits attention. In this case, the story of Philadelphia's Jesse McPherson, who recently had his Xbox 360, TV and laptop stolen. Adding insult to injury, after purchasing a new Xbox, McPherson received a threatening message through the Xbox server from the alleged thief demanding a ransom for the safe return of his stolen goods. After the authorities failed to offer the 26-year-old engineer much assistance, he submitted his case to the news aggregator Digg:

Jesse was shocked to find over 7000 users had launched the event to the top digg's main page. After a barrage of threatening messages to the admitted thief's account from random Xbox Live users and dialog with the brave thief's own mother (His mommy got involved? Ultimate bad-ass!), Jesse's Xbox 360 console was returned in working condition (the Powerbook was also returned on a separate occasion).

Strange and unexpected things can happen in presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to a candidate's perceived strengths. In the past two weeks we've seen John McCain's foreign policy knowledge challenged, Hillary Clinton's experience called into question and Barack Obama's Christian background turned into a potential liability.

And now, we have liberal bloggers bemoaning the positive treatment John McCain receives from the media. Specifically, this Neal Gabler op-ed in the New York Times today, which suggests the media is unnaturally fond of McCain because of his "postmodern" ironic detachment. Seeing a Republican candidate for president favored by the media is sort of like seeing a Democrat endorsed by the NRA. Of course, McCain is not the first Republican presidential candidate to be treated favorably by the press. George W. Bush seemed to have it easier than Al Gore in 2000, and Ronald Reagan was nothing if not a master of image control. If you're a supporter of Hillary Clinton, you may have a legitimate argument to be made that she has been treated less fairly than the other candidates. But Barack Obama has received the most favorable coverage of any candidate running. And while the press certainly seemed to be rooting for McCain to win the Republican primary, we have yet to see how he'll be viewed when running against a Democrat. What should be really interesting is watching the national press corps forced to choose sides in an Obama/McCain matchup.

Lots of blogger discussion today concerning David Brooks' unscientific assertion that Hillary Clinton now has only a five percent chance of winning the Democratic Party's nomination:

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

TNR's Michael Crowley:

I think it's quite possible that Hillary simply doesn't think Obama is electable. (See Bill and "all that other stuff.") Now that may be a delusion. But if you believed it to be true, you would soldier ahead. She also does have quite a lot of passionate supporters cheering her on, and is roughly tied with Obama in national polls; that's not easy to ignore.

Ann Althouse rightly calls out the hypocrisy of Brooks' assertion that a continued Clinton campaign is the "audacity of hopelessness:

How is what's she's doing any different from what every other candidate does as long as there's a chance? To say it's "selfish" or "narcissistic" to think you're special is to criticize everyone who has what it takes to campaign for the presidency.

Ed Morrissey adds:

Beyond that, the Hillary-must-quit contingent seem to forget one thing: she’s still winning states, and people still want to vote for her. Obama hasn’t won the nomination, nor will he win it in the primaries. Why should she quit under those circumstances? By all indications, Hillary will likely win almost all of the upcoming contests, with just North Carolina as a potential exception.

And though I didn't get around to linking it yesterday, Marc Ambinder's fisking of the VandeHei/Allen piece on Clinton's fatalistic campaign is well worth reading.

Howard Kurtz takes a look at BlogTalkRadio, a slowly emerging vehicle for bloggers, or anyone really, who wants to launch their own free talk radio program over the internet:

A year and a half after New Jersey businessman Alan Levy launched the venture, BlogTalkRadio is averaging 2.4 million listeners each month for programs that range from politics to the paranormal, along with sports, finance, food, religion and romance. The Pentagon recently started two shows on the network.

The question is whether this is a flash in the pan that appeals mainly to geeks and those with a need to talk to someone -- anyone -- or whether, like blogs, online radio could explode in popularity.

Not likely, but that doesn't stop Kara Swisher from offering up some anecdotal evidence suggesting a comparatively larger growth trend for the liberal website:

According to data from Nielsen Online, for example, the Huffington Post’s traffic–as measured by monthly unique visitors in the U.S., at home and work–has more than tripled since February of 2007, when it had about 1.1 million unique visitors; by February of 2008, unique visitors had risen to 3.7 million.

In that same month, the Drudge Report had 3.4 million (it had 2.75 million in February of 2007).

Has the New York Times made John McCain its new Augusta storyline? Not long after getting into trouble with conservatives and other media outlets for a McCain story heavy on scandal but short on facts, the paper is back with a piece recounting McCain's alleged flirtations with twice leaving the Republican Party: back in 2001, and again, in 2004, when he reportedly discussed becoming John Kerry's running mate.

Again, the problem here seems to be that no new headway is made on the narrative. All of the facts and alleged maneuvers have been previously reported. But it does at least serve to create discussion on the progressive blogs, which may gin up traffic for the NYT website and generate cable news chatter.

Matthew Yglesias calls the piece a "service," but one paragraph concedes:

I think it's pretty clear that McCain's been less-than-totally honest about this stuff, but beyond that, what's the point? I'm not really sure what the point is, myself.

Most conservative bloggers are dismissing the story, or ignoring it altogether. Hugh Hewitt, who initially opposed McCain's candidacy, says:

What's amusing about this is that the New York Times thinks this matters to Republicans.  John McCain is the GOP nominee, so all that matters is that both the Democrats and their entire party are committed to defeat in Iraq and retreat in the broader war.  How much simpler can this choice be?

The Democratic National Committee is also up with a "McCain versus McCain" site focusing on perceived contradictions in McCain's record.

Via Think Progress, "Fox News Sunday," moderator Chris Wallace was on "Fox and Friends" this morning and objected to what he called "two hours of Obama bashing," after the morning hosts repeatedly played video of Obama's now infamous "typical white person" interview without playing the quote in full context. Wallace:

Hey listen, I love you guys but I want to take you to task if I may, respectfully, for a moment. I have been watching the show since 6:00 this morning when I got up, and it seems to me that two hours of Obama bashing on this typical white person remark is somewhat excessive and frankly I think you’re somewhat distorting what Obama had to say.

You can watch the full video on Think Progress' website.

MoveOn.org, who has endorsed Obama, is also circulating a petition for what they consider unfair attacks against Obama:

FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them and distract Americans from the pressing issues of the day." The more signatures we deliver, the bigger the impact—so please tell your friends.

Soren Dayton, a member of John McCain's online communications political shop, has been suspended for circulating a fiery YouTube video on Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright through his Twitter account.

I reported earlier on Ezra Klein's Twitter mishap.

Dayton, like Klein, is a talented writer and contributor in DC's blogging scene. It's unfortunate to see any young voice in the political debate taking the fall for participating in a medium that is still in the embryonic stages of being understood by political campaigns. Bloggers, writers and independent voices shouldn't have to operate in a climate of fear. Then again, when you work for a political campaign, it's probably always best to play it as safe as possible.

Blog P.I. has more thoughts on Dayton, etc.

Powerline's John Hinderaker catches this interview Barack Obama interview from earlier today in which he is asked about how his white grandmother feels with Obama now being "so close to the presidency." First, Obama, mentions how proud his grandmother is, but goes on to say:

"She is a typical white person. Who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's, uh, been bred into our experiences that don't go away. And that sometimes come out in the wrong way. And that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it and what makes me optimistic is that you see each generation feeling a little less like that."

This leaves Hinderaker to say of Obama that "maybe, in a time of stress, his inexperience is beginning to show," adding:

Think about it: can you imagine any Presidential candidate, in any context, describing anyone as a "typical black person?" Or a "typical Asian person?" Worse, what Obama said was that the "typical white person" views others of different races with fear and suspicion. Obama appears to be digging himself in deeper and deeper.

To have your name, or story, mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's radio show is sort of like having it mentioned on the Drudge Report. If you're a conservative, you've likely produced something that aligns with their political leanings. If you're a liberal, it's probably because you've said something they found to be outrageous.

Nation correspondent Ari Melber was on C-SPAN earlier this week discussing what he believes was a dishonest, and potentially illegal, effort by Limbaugh ("Operation Rush,") to get Republicans to crossover in the Ohio Democratic primary to vote for Hillary Clinton. Word got back to Limbaugh, and he went after Melber during yesterday's broadcast.

Edward Wasserman writes in the Miami Herald about online commenting etiquette. I do think he'd have a bit more credibility writing about the internet if he weren't still using a Hotmail account, but I guess it's not quite as bad as AOL:

In this case, the extreme license given individuals to vent, dissemble, excoriate and indulge their hates verbally, winds up destroying the expressive freedom that other people, less bold and less opinionated, need. Venturing an opinion, even a sound one, just isn't worth the risk. The overall result is a less expansive, less robust sphere of expression -- and sound, worthwhile thoughts aren't shared.

Earlier today I was at the annual Take Back America conference, hosted by the Campaign for Americas Future. It's the liberal counterpart to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Today's agenda included a panel discussion by five leading voices in the online progressive community: Ari Melber, Chris Bowers, Tracy Russo, Digby, Terrance Heath and Pam Spaulding. Highlights after the jump...

The post's headline is intended sarcasm, but it also needs to be said as both sides of the blogosphere, and the media at large, remain breathless over the true meaning of Barack Obama's ties to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

There are silly rationalizations from the left, like Ezra Klein's defense of Wright arguing a double-standard for white and black political/religious extremism.

And there are countless silly examples from the right as well, stockpiling "evidence" that Obama is "toast," and not a true patriot because he doesn't wear flag lapel pins, and because his wife sometimes says ungracious things.

However, some other conservative bloggers are hitting a larger point that Obama himself has all but confessed: his association with the Trinity United Church of Christ was a calculated effort to gain credibility amongst inner-city blacks, with whom Obama would be working as an organizer. NRO's Lisa Schiffren often drifts off the deep end of political discourse, but her point here sticks:

[H]e must have come to understand that, to succeed in politics, it would help to acquire the trappings of being a good Christian — regardless of what he may or may not have personally believed. It is generally beyond the pale to question a public figure's personal religious commitment (Democrat's, anyway) —and I don't personally care whether he is a genuine Christian (whatever that may be) or not. But, if he was there to absorb the spiritual stuff, he can't have missed the political message, since they were pretty closely intertwined.

The point taken in that context makes Obama neither admirable nor abhorrent. What it does show is that he can be diminished in stature when it is revealed that for all his measurable gifts, he is still just another politician at the end of the day.

The Moderate Voice's Paul Silver says the media's intensified focus on Barack Obama's pastor is taking away from more important stories - like how a President Obama, McCain, or Clinton, would actually govern.

The AP's David Bauder looks through the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report and relays a few interesting findings: the internet is making journalists work harder, but we don't seem to mind, and this:

Most news Web sites are no longer final destinations. The report found that many users insist that the sites, and even individual pages, offer plenty of options to navigate elsewhere for more information, the project found. Rosenstiel said he's even able to reach Washington Post stories through the New York Times' Web site. In another unexpected finding, citizen-created Web sites and blogs are actually far less welcoming to outside commentary than the so-called mainstream media, the report said

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban likes to blog in his spare time. Or, maybe it's that he likes to run a NBA team in his spare time when he's not blogging. Either way, he has an insightful piece today on the dangers of mainstream publications starting, and attempting to brand, their own blogs. 

Before this becomes an exercise in solipsism, I'll just say that Cuban's points are largely correct, but there are exceptions. Marc Ambinder calls his site a blog and is widely respected in the grassroots blogosphere. Same for those Politico guys cited in my last post. If there's a more narrowly defined rule to follow it's probably this: media professional who blog for traditional publications have the best odds for success when they add substance to the blogger conversation instead of simply trying to interject themselves into that conversation. But here's Cuban's take:

If you feel that you must offer this product or service as a means of "keeping up" or as a checklist item that you must have for competitive reasons, then do everything possible to brand the product or service in a manner that segregates it from the masses. Perception is reality. If you can leverage your existing brand to create the perception that yours is different from the masses in some meaningful way, then you must do everything you can to do so.

Creating a perceived differentiation can take the form of promoting better execution or quality of the product or service, or it may be something as simple as just branding it with a different name than the mass product or service.

Failure to do so will pull your brand down to that of the masses or elevate the masses to a position of being better able to compete with you.

Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith from the Politico breakdown the latest from the 2008 presidential race in a rare non-egghead edition of bloggingheads.tv.

I've already posted today on the bad habits of aspiring bloggers, but now comes news that even those with good blogging habits may find it difficult to secure a large readership. According to a new poll released today:

Only 22 percent of people responding to the poll said they read blogs regularly, meaning several times a month or more, according to the survey conducted by Harris Interactive.

The poll also refutes the notion that bloggers, and their readers, are all unemployed college students. It turns out that most blog readers, like those who vote, tend to be senior citizens:

While blogs are largely considered the realm of young people who are most Internet-savvy, only 19 percent of people ages 18 to 31, and 17 percent of those ages 32 to 43, regularly read a political blog, the poll said.

The generation most likely to read such blogs are those age 63 or older, 26 percent of whom said they do so. Also, 23 percent of those ages 44 to 62 read them, the poll said.

Also of interest - while liberal blogs drive the most traffic, readership is apparently split nearly as closely as the nation's great political divide:

Roughly an even number -- 22 percent of Republicans and 20 percent of Democrats -- regularly read blogs, while 26 percent of independents do the same, the poll showed.

Tonight's homework for yours truly: Right Wing News scribe John Hawkins outlines the habits of not very successful bloggers. The abbreviated version:

1. They're just not very good
2. They don't cover interesting material
3. They're not unique enough
4. They don't network
5. They don't promote their work
6. They're not consistent enough. They take days off.
7. Dong their initial promos too early
8. They don't link out enough
9. They don't post enough each day
10. They don't hang around long enough

Ashley Parker profiles the residents of "The Flophouse," in yesterday's style section of the New York Times. It's always nice to see bloggers getting some detailed attention in the "big media," but this piece struck me as a little flat.

My first question is: Did any of these bloggers have a professional or personal relationship with Parker prior to her story assignment? They have repeatedly, under the guise of irony, referred to themselves as "cool kids," something Parker calls them at the piece's end as if it were her own label. I have to wonder, what was the inspiration for the piece and how did it come together? Aside from being a little flat, the piece also seems a bit incestuous.

Parker also incorrectly states, "The Flophouse bloggers may not be part of the traditional mainstream news media," but then proceeds to note that most of them currently work for traditional publications. First and foremost, Matthew Yglesias is employed by the Atlantic Monthly. Spencer Ackerman was employed by The New Republic before he was fired, and his blog will be published on The American Prospect's website. Friends of the Flophouse and former residents, Julian Sanchez (Reason, The Economist), David Weigel (Reason, Campaigns and Elections, USA Today), and Katherine Andrews (Washingtonian, CNN, WashingtonPost.com), all work at, or have worked at, D.C.-based publications as well.

My point is, these are all elites, some are children of privilege, and to even joke about living in a "flophouse," almost certainly means their situation is a novelty, not the daunting prospect of a life in poverty that so many of their fellow district residents must grapple with on a daily basis. Of course, there's nothing wrong with being an elite. They are all smart and talented young writers...

I'm sure he would defend the line as delivered as "humor," but if you want to know why so many people dislike D.C. media types, and bloggers in particular, look no further than Ackerman's self-description, "We are smarter and more interesting,' Mr. Ackerman said, by way of explanation."

Nonetheless, if you want more insight into the lives of some of Washington's most-prominent bloggers, the piece is worth a read. Also, note the lack of single conservative blogger mentioned in the piece.

I also think Sanchez, a genuinely talented writer and thinker, at least deserves credit for taking the publicity in stride.

Former Obama senior foreign policy advisor Samantha Power's "monster" comments about Hillary Clinton pale in comparison to her Iraq admission in an interview with the BBC. Obama has said he intends to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months of becoming president. But Power says:

"You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.

In a conference call today, Obama manager David Plouffe downplayed Power's comments and described Obama's Iraq timetable as "rock solid."

Megan McArdle says:

If Obama's team has a fault, it is that they spend far too much time saying "Don't listen to him--listen to us!"

Earlier this week, I stumbled across this picture of actor Robert Downey Jr. (standing in the middle) from the upcoming comedy "Tropical Thunder." The photo was a bit shocking, because Downey Jr. is white and appears as a very black man in the photo. As it turns out, the film is a parody of the making of a Vietnam movie. His character is a method actor, ala Marlon Brando, someone who fully immerses themselves in a role, often to a fault. The joke is that Downey Jr.'s character in the film-within-a-film is an African-American, so he has surgery to "become" a black man for the role. Clearly, the intent is to spoof the previous practice of casting white actors in roles that were meant to be portrayed by African-Americans, Native Americans, etc.

One moment, and sometimes even a single second, can make or break a political career. Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, has resigned her post this morning after making the following comment to The Scotsman about Hillary Clinton:

"She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.

Had Ms. Power merely flipped those words to, "Off the record - she is a monster," she would still have her job and the story would not be blowing up on the blogs and cable television. MSNBC barely paused to take a breath this morning before repeating, over and over, that Power has resigned her position. Right or wrong, imagine how Power must be feeling today - unemployed and humiliated for simply not prefacing her comment correctly with an off-the-record request. While her comment was unprofessional, any reporter covering the presidential election knows it was mild compared to some of the other "off-the-record" comments made by campaign operatives and reporters themselves. How many people are racing through their memories today wondering what potentially career-threatening things they have said, but were spared as their words were not subject to a public hearing?

Over at TNR, Michael Crowley hits on some of my same points and expands:

More to the point, when the media gives public figures zero margin for error, they offer us zero trust in return. There's a place for letting people vent their true feelings off the record in ways they can't publicly--and if they slip up, for not hanging them on a technicality. But each episode like this gives people yet another reason to say nothing interesting to journalists, which makes our understanding of the world less informed, which--although occasionally there will be a juicy story like this one--ultimately means readers are the poorer for it.

The conservative blog Just One Minute catches some of the traditional media in a bit of revisionism  that appears to benefit Obama. First, the material:

"Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate. Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn't read it. I don't know what all that experience got her because I have enough experience to know that if you have a National Intelligence Estimate, and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I'm voting against the war,' that you should probably read it," Mr. Obama said to thunderous applause.:

Seems innocuous, but...

But Mr. Rockefeller voted for the war. It was Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham, now retired, who chaired the committee in 2002, urged colleagues to read the briefing paper and voted against the war.

Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki insisted that "there was nothing intentionally misleading" about Mr. Obama's statement. The core issue, she said, was whether Mrs. Clinton made a correct and informed decision. "I don't think the people in the audience care who Jay Rockefeller is," she said.

That certainly seems believable enough. Presidential candidates give a lot of speeches and say a lot of things they must later correct. With John McCain, we've seen his verbal gaffes twisted out of context ("100 years in Iraq") and we've seen them simply treated with amusement for the harmless miscues they are ("I'm a conservative, liberal Republican'). 

But in this case, Just One Minute tracks the time line of how Obama's inaccuracy was treated by the media. First, the AP runs the initial telling as is. But in the Los Angeles Times' version, the inaccuracy is removed without providing proper context, with the New York Times following suit.

One more problem: Just One Minute additionally notes that even if Obama has used Graham's name, the anecdote would still be misleading. In Graham's own words, he voted against the Iraq war resolution because he didn't believe it went far enough:

Graham's basic theme was actually quite hawkish - he worried that the resolution did not include other terrorists groups and that the focus on Iraq was misdirected:

They say that passing this resolution is the equivalent of if the Alllies had declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy.

It's like the adage that we all become our parents, but with webcams.

PBS's MediaShift finds, "Mainstream media reporters have started blogging in droves, while larger blog operations have hired seasoned reporters and focused on doing traditional journalism." And now, for a pop quiz:

1. Who won a recent Polk Award for investigative journalism, a blogger or MSM reporter?

2. Which big New York-based website has four editors and four reporters, and is looking to hire two more reporters — a blog or traditional media outlet?

3. Which site hired a young blogger fresh out of college? Blog or MSM site?

4. Which site in Silicon Valley edits 80% of stories before being published online? Blog or MSM site?

Answers: 1. Josh Marshall, Talkingpointsmemo blogger; 2. Gawker blog; 3. NYTimes.com, hiring TVNewser’s Brian Stelter; 4. GigaOm blog.

As a number of my former Washington Times colleagues can attest to, the hiring of John Solomon as  the paper's editor-in-chief brings with it many hopes for enhancing the paper's reputation, overall quality and staff morale.

One of the paper's most embarrassing components has been its reliance on outdated, and some would say, loaded, stylistic preferences: homosexual "marriage," in place of gay marriage; illegal aliens instead of illegal immigrants, and so on.

Well, it appears that Solomon is on the same page as those wanting a more respectable, albeit still conservative, voice emanating from 3600 New York Ave. The following "style changes" email was issued about an hour ago from the paper's Patrick Tuohy:

From: Patrick Tuohy <ptuohy@washingtontimes.com>

Date: February 25, 2008 4:43:13 PM EST

To: twtnews@washingtontimes.com

Cc: Patrick Tuohy <ptuohy@washingtontimes.com>

Subject: Style changes

All:

Here are some recent updates to TWT style.

1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.

3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).

4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.

5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.

Thanks.

Patrick

Sat down yesterday morning (on my couch, in true blogger form), for a group podcast discussion with Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, Michael Brendan Dougherty of the American Conservative and "Inside Washington Weekly" host David White, of the Americas Future Foundation.

We discussed the ongoing Democratic primary race, the New York Times/McCain story and a few other items along the way.

And yes, to crouch blogger vernacular, I "smeared" the great director Jim Jammusch by referring to his 1995 masterpiece "Dead Man" as "Dead Man Walking." In my defense, both films came out the same year and Dead Man Walking is a pretty good description of the film, Dead Man. But as a cinephile who once surprised/disturbed the unflappable Chuck Todd by knowing William Friedkin's birthday, even though I've never seen the Exorcist, I'm a little disappointed in myself...

As the McCain/NYT story develops, it's interesting to review how it is being both perceived and discussed by the traditional media and by the blogs. The two mediums often have problems with one another, but there is a convergence of sorts so far on this topic.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer editor David McCumber explained his paper's decision not to run the McCain story, calling it "pretty thin beer," (a fitting metaphor for those of us native to the micro-brewing hub that is the Northwest):

This story seems to me not to pass the smell test. It makes the innuendo of impropriety, even corruption, without backing it up. I was taught that before you run something in the newspaper that could ruin somebody's reputation, you'd better have your facts very straight indeed.

Michelle Malkin sifts through the Seattle P-I's story's "interesting" comments section.

In what Ed Morrissey calls "a rather telling denunciation," on the Los Angeles Times' blog, Andrew Malcom explains why the Boston Globe, a paper owned by the New York Times, also passed on the McCain story in favor of the latter version penned by competitors the Washington Post:

That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied.

On Thursday the Globe's website, Boston.com, did provide a link to the Times story on the Times' website. But such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story.

Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment."

When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.

The Project for Excellent in Journalism has released tabulations of recent press coverage for the presidential candidates. John McCain received 37 percent of the coverage to 21 percent for Mitt Romney. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama rated much closer, but Democrats did receive about five percent more overall coverage than the Republicans:

In that Jan. 28-Feb. 3 period, which ran from the day before the Florida primary to two days before Super Tuesday, McCain generated more coverage than any candidate. And that coverage suggested a media “tiering” of the race, with McCain a heavy favorite over several also-rans. McCain had not necessarily put Mitt Romney away, but the press nearly had. On the Democratic side—where Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were virtually equal in media attention for the third consecutive week—the tone and level of coverage anticipated a long and intense battle.

The leading discussion on the blogosphere right now concerns today's Howard Kurtz column, which reports that Barack Obama and his top-level staffers are not spending as much time courting reporters on the campaign trail as some in the media would like.

The perceived media snub is leaving some reporters, like Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, sounding like he was left holding a corsage outside the junior-high prom:

"There is no charm offensive from the candidate toward the press corps," says Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe. "The contact is limited. . . . They see the national media more as a logistical problem than a channel for getting stuff out."

Of course, what is team Obama's incentive to risk over-exposure when so many reporters, like NBC's Lee Cowan, have-all-but endorsed the man they are supposed to be objectively reporting on?

The risk, according to a number of bloggers, is that spurned lovers like Wolffe may pull a Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction and turn on Obama.

Just One Minute:

the seeds have been sown for an Obama media backlash, but when will we see the harvest?

And Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum:

Obama has gotten pretty rapturous press coverage anyway, and Kurtz mentions later in his piece that reporters are just as susceptible to the famous Obama charisma as anyone. Still, the general election is going to be a slugfest, and it's a bad sign if Obama's press operation hasn't been honed to deal with it. What's more, it's also peculiar: why stay aloof from a press corps that loves you? Maybe someone should try to ask him.

However, Jules Crittendon says Obama's strategy may actually play in his favor.

Don't be surprised to see this becoming a big story with conservative bloggers over the next day or two. During tonight's coverage, MSNBC anchors Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have continued their pattern of mocking the speeches and appearance of several of the Republican primary candidates.

It began after John McCain's New Hampshire victory speech and continues tonight, where the two hosts and their crews openly laughed after Fred Thompson's concession speech. The pair then went on to mock Mitt Romney's clothing choices, with Matthews asking Romney if he had removed his tie and loosened his shirt to appear more "normal" to voters.

Fishbowl DC has the video here.

Michelle Malkin vents:

I switched to MSNBC when Fox cut away from Fred’s pep talk in Columbia, SC. They all cackled after Thompson finished speaking.

I should have switched it off right there, but I decided to stay with the left-wing channel for Mitt Romney’s appearance.

The dorks at MSNBC grilled him over his hair, his unbuttoned collar, and his rolled-up sleeves.

How often do you see bloggers correctly telling the traditional media to get ahold of themselves?

But Ezra Klein does just that, and calls the mainstream press to task for its “white-hot hatred” of Mitt Romney:

Romney's jobs rhetoric is stupid. But it's a common campaign lie, and one the press never, ever rebels against. They hate Romney, though, and so he's getting an uncommon level of scrutiny.

Specifically, Klein is referencing this video showing AP reporter Glen Johnson hounding Romney on whether the lobbyists “run” his campaign.

You won't often find this blog defending the semantic parsings of a candidate for elective office, but in this case, Romney’s balancing act of having lobbyists involved in his campaign is a fair distinction from Johnson’s emotionally charged accusation of said lobbyists “running” Romney’s effort.

After this story broke yesterday, I was speaking with someone who works for the McCain campaign. This individual, much like their boss, has little but contempt for Romney, but stood up for him in this case, noting Johnson was known for being similarly confrontational and bordering on unprofessional during the 2004 campaign.

I’m not out on the campaign trail, so I can’t speak directly to the quality of work being done by the press corps. But maybe if they called out false statements on an individual basis instead of waiting for explosive outbursts like Johnson’s, the public would be better served. After all, isn’t a single “lie” one lie too many?

It took but a few moments after news broke yesterday of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for the cable news networks to begin debating which presidential candidate would benefit most from the news.

Almost as quickly, several liberal bloggers began criticizing the discussion. For instance, Talking Points Memo’s Greg Sargent singles out a discussion by MSNBC Joe Scarborough over the potential political fallout.

But over at MyDD, Todd Beeton defends looking at the politics of murder:

I'm sorry but Bhutto's assassination was a political event whether people like it or not; it's much larger than the tragic death of Bhutto and the throngs of supporters who were killed as well, this is earth-shaking, both abroad and at home. There is a parliamentary election in Pakistan on January 8th, which Bhutto's death clearly throws into chaos; is it distasteful to speak of that election as well? And what arbitrary date does it suddenly become OK to discuss the political ramifications of this event? As much as people like to belittle talk of who is going to win the primaries over the next few weeks as trivial "horserace" coverage, there are few issues more crucial to the future of our world than who the next president of the United States is. The extent to which this event informs that decision, I see it as absolutely relevant to the discussion.

In the conservative blogosphere, Captains Quarters' Ed Morrissey went after Bill Richardson for calling on Musharraf to resign in light of the assassination.

Over at Time’s Swampland blog, Jay Carney brings a different perspective to the conventional wisdom reaction that national security candidates like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani benefit from such news:

[T]he impact of international events on domestic elections can be hard to predict. Take McCain's resurgence among the Republicans. McCain brandished his hawkish stand on Iraq earlier this year. Together with immigration, it nearly killed his campaign. Now that Iraq has receded as an issue and turned into a positive of sorts, at least for him, McCain has risen from the ashes. But that may be mere coincidence. McCain is benefitting far less from his steadfast stance on Iraq or his national security experience than he is from the unprecedented fluidity of the GOP race, the general unhappiness of Republican voters with their choices and the surprise surge of Mike Huckabee as a potential Romney-killer in Iowa.